A society without a state?

[red senator]

Lenin says that the state will eventually wither away after the revolution, and anarchist want the state to be abolished overnight. How would a society work without a state.

[Revolution Hero]

Society with no state will work as the structer of communes and local self-governments. The high economical development is necessary in order to move into no state form.

[kingbee]

the communes would not need a state. marx said that the state is capitalisms way of opressing the people. why need a state anyway?

[Josip Broz Tito]

It is possible to have society without state, but it requires a long process of development. It is not possible to have society without state overnight and I don't think that anarchists want that. Some evolving is necessary. Socialism -> Communism -> Anarchy. And of course, high economic development.

[Borincano]

Still, I would like to know, how exactly could a nation survive without a large scale government? Yes, small communes and local self-governments could be established, but couldn't that create more wars on a smaller scale? There is no such thing as true democracy, a leader could rise up in these communes and fight to re-create a large government.

Also, the fractionalization of an entire government and the tasks of culture and identity of a people brought before small communes could also contribute to the destruction of a greater, national culture through the policies of so many little communities. Just my questions and opinions. :)

[red senator]

Quote: from kingbee on 2:52 pm on May 17, 2002
the communes would not need a state. marx said that the state is capitalisms way of opressing the people. why need a state anyway?


For a military? I think Marx says the standing army should be immediatly disarmed after the revolution and should be replaced with a militia of the people. Wouldn't a nationaly organized army work better than commune militias.

Also, wouldn't you need a state to insure that one commune didnt go right-wing or begin to limit the freedoms of its people?

(Edited by red senator at 12:44 am on May 18, 2002)

[Borincano]

Quote: from red senator on 6:42 pm on May 17, 2002
For a military? I think Marx says the standing army should be immediatly disarmed after the revolution and should be replaced with a militia of the people. Wouldn't a nationaly organized army work better than commune militias.

Very true, but whose to say what works better when all the little communes have small militias that pretty much could have the same amount of efficiency. So if they do go to war with each other, which is a very likely prediction under anarchism or true communism, it wouldn't be like a large scale event under huge nations, but an imperialistic battle from the Middle Ages or the Western Plains of the USA under the Native Americans for control over other communities. Either way, war can happen and destroy the whole point of creating communes.


Quote: from red senator on 6:42 pm on May 17, 2002
Also, wouldn't you need a state to insure that one commune didnt go right-wing or begin to limit the freedoms of its people?


Very true and my point exactly.

[RGacky3]

Read the community union socialsm, forum. this type of socialism fixes all these problems.

[honest intellectual]

Quote: from Borincano on 12:51 am on May 18, 2002


Quote: from red senator on 6:42 pm on May 17, 2002
Also, wouldn't you need a state to insure that one commune didnt go right-wing or begin to limit the freedoms of its people?


Very true and my point exactly.

If the people are in control of the commune, then the commune cannot limit the freedoms of its people. That's the whole point of anarchy

[peaccenicked]

Engels talks about an administration of things. In a sense many people would see that as a State. However Marxists and anarchists see the State as the Instrument by which one class oppresses another.
All we are really saying is that society does not need this sort of State. Society can be classless and free.

[RGacky3]

True the state is oppressive, but anarchy would not get rid of states, no one would have the power to stop oppression and eventually some one will come to power. However the state does not always have to be oppressive, COMMUNITY UNION SOCIALISM IS THE ANSWER

[thebigcom]

communism says that when the porletariats have their revolution they will form a society where each man will be dependent on the other. this will eventually take away the need for a gov't.

[Shock To The System]

anarchists don't believe the state can be ablished over night( im an anarchist btw)...it would take a few good years for that to happen.....
as for the communitys fighting amongst themselves, this would be prevented beacuse although all the communes have there own way of organising production etc (under leadership of advisors, who have no authority over the communes militia, therefore no power), all the communes miltias would be united under one.
So, if one commune became corrupt, all the other militias of the other communes would unite and fight the corrupt commune.
The proletarian militia of all communes would take arms and protect all the other communes, and protect the revolution.
So, the proletarian militias effectively replace the state.
This is what Bakunin wrote, and i'm inclined to agree with it.
You see, all the communes are seperate but at the same time united. The militia is the people, therefore it can persue the ambitions and will of the people, better than a party and state ever could. Therefore, it would be more effective at protecting the revolution.